Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2

on

  • 545 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
545
Views on SlideShare
545
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
17
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Florida seminar nov2013_ur_ls_v2 Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Smart Driving Cars: History and Evolution (remove?) of Automated Vehicles By Alain L. Kornhauser Professor, Operations Research & Financial Engineering Director, Program in Transportation Faculty Chair, PAVE (Princeton Autonomous Vehicle Engineering Princeton University Board Chair, Advanced Transit Association (ATRA) Presented at September 20, 2013
  • 2. Outline • Automated Vehicles: 1939 -> Beyond 2018 – Defining “Automated Vehicles” – The 1st 75 years: (1939 -> 2014) • 1939 -> DARPA Challenges • DARPA Challenges -> Today – The next 75 years: (2014 -> 2089) • Today -> 2018 (next 5 years) • Beyond 2018 (next 70 years) • Questions/Discussion (aka “SmartDrivingCars”)
  • 3. Scope of Surface Transportation • Surface Transportation Vehicle + Running Surface (aka roadway, guideway, railway)
  • 4. Scope of “Automated Vehicles” Tesla Car Transporter Rio Tinto Automated Truck Rio Tinto Automated Train Tampa Airport 1st APM 1971 Automated Guided Vehicles Copenhagen Metro Elevator Mercedes Intelligent Drive Rivium 2006 -> Milton Keynes, UK Aichi, Japan, 2005 Expo CityMobil2 Heathrow PodCar
  • 5. What is a SmartDrivingCar? Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles Level 0 (No automation) SmartDrivingCars & Trucks The human is in complete and sole control of safety-critical functions (brake, throttle, steering) at all times. Level 1 (Function-specific automation) The human has complete authority, but cedes limited control of certain functions to the vehicle in certain normal driving or crash imminent situations. Example: electronic stability control Level 2 (Combined function automation) Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations. Enables hands-off-wheel and foot-off-pedal operation. Driver still responsible for monitoring and safe operation and expected to be available at all times to resume control of the vehicle. Example: adaptive cruise control in conjunction with lane centering Level 3 (Limited self-driving) Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. Human can cede monitoring authority to vehicle, which must alert driver if conditions require transition to driver control. Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google car Level 4 (Full self-driving automation) Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. The human provides destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for control during the trip. Vehicle may operate while unoccupied. Responsibility for safe operation rests solely on the automated system
  • 6. Automated Vehicles Operating in their own Exclusive Roadway In the late 60s… Some thought that: “The automation & computer technology that took us to the moon could now revolutionize mass transit and save our cities from the onslaught of the automobile” Donn Fichter “Individualized Automatic Transit and the City” 1964 PRT Westinghouse Skybus Late 60’s- APM
  • 7. APM Automated People Movers Automated Vehicle, Exclusive Guideway, Long Headway (Large Vehicles) Now exist in essentially every Major Airport and a few Major Activity Centers
  • 8. PRT Personal Rapid Transit Automated Vehicle, Exclusive Guideway, Short Headway (Small Vehicles) Starting in the early 70’s: U of Minnesota became the center of PRT research focused on delivering auto-like ubiquitous mobility throughout urban areas J. Edward Anderson William Garrard Alain Kornhauser • Since Demand very diffuse (Spatially and Temporally): – Many stations served by Many small vehicles • • Many stations – Each off-line with interconnected mainlines • • (rather than a few large vehicles). To minimize intermediate stops and transfers Many small vehicles – Require more sophisticated control systems, • both longitudinal and lateral.
  • 9. PRT Personal Raid Transit Some early test- track success…
  • 10. DFW AirTrans PRT Was built and operational for many years
  • 11. Morgantown 1975 Video1 Video2 Remains a critical mobility system today & Planning an expansion
  • 12. Today… We can Build and Operate them Safely Morgantown 1975 Remains a critical mobility system today & planning an expansion
  • 13. Masdar & Heathrow are Operational; Suncheon in testing Masdar, Abu Dhabi Heathrow PodCar Suncheon, Korea
  • 14. Far-term Opportunities for Driverless, Short Headway, Exclusive Guideway Transit • Each Year: My students Design a NJ-wide PRT network • Objective: to effectively serve essentially all NJ travel demand (all 30x106 daily non-walk trips) • Locate Stations so that “every” demand point is within “5 minute walk” of a station; “efficiently” interconnect all stations; maintain existing NJ Transit Rail and express bus operations ) • Typically: – ~10,000 stations – ~10,000 miles of guideway
  • 15. County Stations Atlantic 191 Bergen 1,117 Burlington 597 Camden 482 Cape May 976 Cumberland 437 Essex 595 Gloucester 412 Hudson 467 Hunterdon 405 Mercer 413 Miles 526 878 488 355 497 1,009 295 435 122 483 403 County Stations Middlesex 444 Monmouth 335 Morris 858 Ocean 540 Passaic 1185 Salem 285 Somerset 568 Sussex 409 Union 577 Warren 484 Total 11,295 Miles 679 565 694 1,166 1,360 772 433 764 254 437 12,261
  • 16. Cost of Far-term Driverless Guideway Transit • Each Year: students Design a NJ-wide PRT network • Objective: to effectively serve essentially all NJ travel demand (all 30x106 daily non-walk trips) • Locate Stations so that “every” demand point is within “5 minute walk” of a station; “efficiently” interconnect all stations; maintain existing NJ Transit Rail and express bus operations ) • Typically: – – – – – ~10,000 stations: @ $2.5M/station………….. ~$ 25B ~10,000 miles of guideway: @ $10M/mile… ~$ 100B ~750,000 PRT vehicles: @ $100K/vehicle … ~$ 75B Optimistic Capital Cost: …………………………. ~$ 200B NJ’s Personal Expenditures for Mobility: …… ~$ 25B/year
  • 17. But, Deployment has been Excruciatingly Slow … •Many years ago…The Executive Director of APTA put his arm around me and said: – “Alain… • Personal Rapid Transit (PRT) is the ‘System of the Future’, • And….. – Always Will Be!!!
  • 18. What he was saying was… • Final Region-wide system would be really great, but… • Any great Final System MUST evolve from some great (feasible) initial system and MUST be great (feasible) at every step along the way, otherwise… • It will always be “a system of the future”. • The dedicated grade-separated guideway infrastructure requirement of PRT may simply be too onerous and risky for it to be feasible let alone great at any point except at the ultimate nirvana which is unreachable. Yipes!
  • 19. What about the Personal Car (Vehicles purchased by consumers for personal mobility)
  • 20. Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges Focused on Creating New Roadways To be used Exclusively by Automated Vehicles • GM Futurama @ 1939 World’s Fair • Zworykin & Flory @ RCA-Sarnoff in Princeton, Late 50s* * VK Zworykin & L Flory “Electronic Control of Motor Vehicles on Highways” Proc. 37th Annual Mtg Highway Research Board, 1958 Cruise Control (1958) 1945 Invented by Ralph Teetor 1958 Chrysler Imperial 1st intorduction GM first offered on the 1959 model year Cadillac.
  • 21. Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges • Anti-lock Braking Systems (ABS) (1971) (wikipedia) – Chrysler & Bendix Corporation, introduced a computerized, threechannel, four-sensor all-wheel[6] ABS called "Sure Brake" for its 1971 Imperial. – Ford added an antilock braking system called "Sure-track" to the rear wheels of Lincoln Continentals as a standard option – General Motors :"Trackmaster" rear-wheel only ABS . An option on rear-wheel drive Cadillac models and the Oldsmobile Toronado. • “Wire Sniffing” Cars • Robert E Fenton @ OSU, Early 70s* * “A Headway Safety Policy for Automated Highway Operations” R.E. Fenton 1979
  • 22. Automated Cars: Pre-DARPA Challenges • 1990s – National Automated Highway System Research Program (NAHSRP) (1994-97) • Goal to develop specifications for a fully automated highway system • Benefits: – #1. Roadway capacity (led to focus on platooning) – #2. Safety – #3…. Robust to Weather, Mobility, Energy, Land Use, Commercial efficiency, travel time • Focused on automated roadways serving only fully automated vehicles. • References – The National Automated Highway System That Almost Was; – TRB Special Report 253 “National Automated Highway System Research Program: A Review” – Cheon, Sanghyun “An overview of Automated Highway Systems (AHS) and the Social and Institutional Challenges they Face” (Excellent critique, well worth reading) – Video Summary of NAHSRP (compare the tone to what Mercedes did in Frankfurt. We’ve come a very long way!) • Program Cancelled! No Feasible Initial Condition – No reason to build Automated Highway If there are no Automated Cars & visa versa.
  • 23. DARPA Challenges 2004 CMU “Red Team” 2005 StanfordRacing Team DARPA Grand Challenge 2007 CMU “Tartan Team” Created in response to a Congressional and DoD mandate: a field test intended to accelerate R&D in autonomous ground vehicles that will help save American lives on the battlefield.
  • 24. 2005 2007 Slide 49 Link to Presentation Not Easy Old House 2005 2007
  • 25. Prospect Eleven & 2005 Competition
  • 26. the making of a monster
  • 27. 2005 Grand Challenge
  • 28. Objective • Enrich the academic experience of the students Constraints • Very little budget Guiding Principles • Simplicity
  • 29. Homemade “Unlike the fancy “drive by wire” system employed by Stanford and VW, Princeton’s students built a homemade set of gears to drive their pickup. I could see from the electronics textbook they were using that they were learning as they went.” http://www.pcmag.com/slideshow_viewer/0,1205,l=&s=1489&a=161569&po=2,00.asp
  • 30. Fall 2004
  • 31. Fall 2005
  • 32. It wasn’t so easy…
  • 33. Pimp My Ride (a video presentation)
  • 34. Achievements in the 2005
  • 35. Link to GPS Tracks
  • 36. Participation in the 2007
  • 37. Prospect12_TestRun
  • 38. Today.. • Continuing to work on Prospect 12 • Vision remains our focus for depth mapping, object recognition and tracking • Objective is to pass NJ Driver’s Test.
  • 39. Fundamental Contribution of DARPA: 2004 CMU “Red Team” 2005 StanfordRacing Team 2007 CMU “Tartan Team” Change the mind set to: focus on the Individual Vehicle Make it “Autonomous”: Able to “Drive” without any outside help, behavior modification of conventional roadway users and, physical changes in existing roadways.
  • 40. Automated Vehicles: Post-DARPA Challenges (2007 -> today) Driverless (Level 4); Non-Exclusive Roadway; Low Speed (< 25kph) • CityMobil (2008 -> 2012) – Low speed (< 25 kph), – Lidar pedestrian detection – Non-exclusive simple roadway – just lane markings – Includes pedestrians & low speed vehicles • La Rochelle (CyberCars/Cybus/INRIA • CityMobil2 (2012->…) • Slated for 5 city deployments + Singapore + ???
  • 41. Where Are We with Automated Cars/SmartDrivingCars?
  • 42. Current State of Automated Cars • Much of the Public Interest has been induced by the Self-Driving Car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE – It is not driverless… • Not yet – What did they do? • Adopted the DARPA “mind Set” ( & Sebastian Thrun from Stanford DARPA Team + others) • Bought “Standard Lexus” (w/ electronically controlled Brakes, Throttle & Steering (BTS)) • “Straped on” – Sensors: LIDAR’s “depth point cloud”, GPS, Radars & Cameras (on the expensive side) – Communications: to access 3D digital map data – Software & Computer: Converts Sensor Output into BTS Inputs • Developed a self-driving vehicle that can operate in the existing environment. • Stated Motivation: >90% of road traffic accidents involve human error. – So… remove the human from the loop. • Have Self-Driven over 500,000 miles on Existing Roads in Existing Traffic Conditions http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdgQpa1pUUE
  • 43. SmartDrivingCars: Post-DARPA Challenges (2010-today) • VisLab.it (U. of Parma, Italy) – Had assisted Oshkosh in DARPA Challenges – Stereo vision + radars (Video has no sound)
  • 44. SmartDrivingCars: Post-DARPA Challenges (2010-today) • University Efforts: – CMU + GM – Stanford + VW – Va Tech + Google? – Oxford + Nissan – Parma + Fiat – Princeton (PAVE) –…
  • 45. Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars” • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research
  • 46. Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars” • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury
  • 47. Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars” • Using AAA Liability Rates per Fatality and Injury
  • 48. Expected Safety Implications of “Google Cars” $475/yr are “Pass-through” Dollars Assume: Emergence of “Price Leaders” $450/yr Discount for Me $25/yr for Flo or the Gecko or ??? To enhance “Combined Ratio” Could Discount Finance: ??
  • 49. What are the Current Challenges?
  • 50. Google has “shown”: “We can build it!” Don Draper (Mad Man) Has Done a Great Job Convincing Us that We Love to Drive! (Or, do we?? Are we any good at it?) Safety Hasn’t Been Great at Selling Cars What is salient the “Value Proposition”? What will Consumers Buy?
  • 51. The Automobile’s 1st 125 Years (1886-2011) Benz patent 1886 1 Automobile st Benz Circa 2011 Delivered: Enormous Personal Freedom & Mobility But…Safe Operation Requires Continuous Vigilance
  • 52. We Love the Freedom & Mobility But…Continuous Vigilance is an unrealistic requirement for drivers
  • 53. Txtng while driving is out of control…
  • 54. TravelTainment Industry Wants Everyone’sAttention
  • 55. http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/SmartDrivingCars/NHTSA_Hendricks2001_UnsafeDrivingActs.pdf “In 717 out of 723 crashes (99%), a driver behavioral error caused or contributed to the crash” In In 717 out of 723 accidents ((99%)
  • 56. Early Estimate of Motor Vehicle Traffic Fatalities in 2012
  • 57. Response is Laudable Kirkland, WA But… Not Likely to be Effective
  • 58. Crash Mitigation (air bags, seat belts, crash worthiness, …) Up to today: The Primary Purview of Good News: Effective in reducing Deaths and Accident Severity Bad News: Ineffective in reducing Expected Accident Liability & Ineffective in reducing Insurance Rates
  • 59. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles Extending its vehicle safety standards from Crash Mitigation to Crash Avoidance with Aim at Full Self-Driving Automation Level 0 (No automation) The human is in complete and sole control of safety-critical functions (brake, throttle, steering) at all times. Level 1 (Function-specific automation) The human has complete authority, but cedes limited control of certain functions to the vehicle in certain normal driving or crash imminent situations. Example: electronic stability control Level 2 (Combined function automation) Automation of at least two control functions designed to work in harmony (e.g., adaptive cruise control and lane centering) in certain driving situations. Enables hands-off-wheel and foot-off-pedal operation. Driver still responsible for monitoring and safe operation and expected to be available at all times to resume control of the vehicle. Example: adaptive cruise control in conjunction with lane centering Level 3 (Limited self-driving) Vehicle controls all safety functions under certain traffic and environmental conditions. Human can cede monitoring authority to vehicle, which must alert driver if conditions require transition to driver control. Driver expected to be available for occasional control. Example: Google car Level 4 (Full self-driving automation) Vehicle controls all safety functions and monitors conditions for the entire trip. The human provides destination or navigation input but is not expected to be available for control during the trip. Vehicle may operate while unoccupied. Responsibility for safe operation rests solely on the automated system
  • 60. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles What the Levels Deliver: Levels 1 -> 3: Increased Safety, Comfort & Convenience
  • 61. Where Are We Now? Available in ShowRooms for Consumers “Level 2- Combined Automation wit Constant Vigilance ”
  • 62. What’s in the Showroom Today? • A number of car companies have been offering active Forward Collision Avoidance Systems for several years – – – – – Volvo Acura Mercedes Subaru … http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/47/5/1
  • 63. Preliminary Results are Disappointing
  • 64. But what has been sold so far doesn’t really work…
  • 65. Tested: Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems
  • 66. Tested: Autonomous Emergency Braking (AEB) Systems Model Score: City Rating: City Score: Rating: Inter-Urban Inter-Urban Mercedes-Benz E-Class 3.0 points Good (video) 2.7 points Good Volvo V40 2.1 points Good (video) 2.2 points Good Mitsubishi Outlander 2.1 points Good (video) 1.9 points Adequate Volvo XC60 1.9 points Adequate (video) --- --- Fiat 500L 1.8 points Adequate (video) --- --- Ford Focus 1.7 points Adequate (video) --- --- Volkswagen Golf --- --- 2.2 points Good (video) Honda Civic --- --- 0.44 points Marginal (video)
  • 67. However, It seems that some manufacturers are finally …. Getting Serious about Collision Avoidance And Serious about using it sell cars And Serious about having it work
  • 68. Click images to view videos S-Class WW Launch May ‘13 MB @ Frankfurt Auto Show Sept ‘13 MB Demo Sept ‘13 Intelligent Drive (active steering  ) Volvo Truck Emergency braking
  • 69. History and Development of DISTRONIC: Price reduction, intelligent packaging and availability cross-carline MY 2000 Introduce DISTRONIC Adaptive Cruise Control In package for +$3,700 Only available on S/CL MY 2006 - Current MY 2014 - Future DISTRONIC PLUS Autonomous Braking Intervention In “Driver Assistance Package” with Blind Spot Assist/Lane Keeping Assist $2,950 Available Cross-Carline on almost every model Enhancements to Driver Asst. Package •Steering Assist •BAS with Cross-Traffic Assist •PRE-SAFE Brake with Pedestrian Detection •PRE-SAFE PLUS – protection during rear collisions In “Driver Assistance Package” with Blind Spot Assist/Lane Keeping Assist +$2,800 Only available on S/E
  • 70. Near Term Opportunities DOT HS 810 767 Pre-Crash Scenario Typology for Crash Avoidance Research $475 are Pass-through Dollars
  • 71. Could “Pass-through” Finance Mercedes Intelligent Drive?? (Available in ‘14 S-Class) May well Deliver 2/3rds the safety of Google Car $475 Pass-through becomes: $320 $20/yr for Flo or the Gecko $300/yr to Mercedes Therefore: I get Intelligent Drive for Free (thank you Google) !! Plus: •Prob. of my car killing me is reduced factor: 2/3*.81= 0.54 (half) •Prob. of my car injuring me is reduced factor: 2/3*.65= 0.44 •I “Save” my expected “deductible self-insurance”: $247/yr •I have more Comfort •I have more Convenience •I have “Anxiety” relief What a great Business Case! I’m a Buyer!
  • 72. Expected Implications… With Mercedes as the Market Leader offering “Level 2-” SmartDriving Technology at an incremental price tag that can be absorbed by a “Price Leading” Insurance Company, should lead to: • Other automakers will be enticed to follow (race seems to have already started) • Viral adoption by the car buying public • “Moore’s Law type of price/performance improvement • Market-driven Transition to “Level 2” and “Level 3” at same or even lower price structure • Adoption and enhancement rates that are comparable to that enjoyed by airbags may be likely
  • 73. Where might We End Up?
  • 74. Preliminary Statement of Policy Concerning Automated Vehicles What the Levels Deliver: Levels 1 -> 3: Increased Safety, Comfort & Convenience Primarily a Consumer Play Level 4 (Driverless Opportunity) : Mobility, Efficiency, Equity Revolutionizes “Mass Transit” by Greatly Extending the Trips that can be served @ “zero” cost of Labor. (That was always the biggest “value” of PRT; zero labor cost for even zero-occupant trips) Primarily a Fleet Play
  • 75. Initial Deployment… • Needs to be Driverless – With Excellent Pedestrian Recognition • Doesn’t Need To Be… – Fast – Everywhere • Let’s start Slow and Narrow: – Like CityMobile2… – Say 10-15 mph • Along a Corridor, or • Throughout one of Florida’s Retirement Communities Slide 98
  • 76. What About……
  • 77. What About…… Driverless electric shuttle to be trialled in Singapore (video of Luxembourg Demonstration) Slide 84
  • 78. What About……
  • 79. Far-term Opportunities for Driverless Transit Using “All” Existing Roads”
  • 80. Slide 98 Slide 89
  • 81. All Trips Home County ATL BER BUC BUR CAM CAP CUM ESS GLO HUD HUN MER MID MON MOR NOR NYC OCE PAS PHL ROC SAL SOM SOU SUS UNI WAR WES Trips # 936,585 3,075,434 250,006 1,525,713 1,746,906 333,690 532,897 2,663,517 980,302 2,153,677 437,598 1,248,183 2,753,142 2,144,477 1,677,161 12,534 215,915 1,964,014 1,704,184 46,468 81,740 225,725 1,099,927 34,493 508,674 1,824,093 371,169 TripMiles AverageTM Miles Miles 27,723,931 40,006,145 9,725,080 37,274,682 27,523,679 11,026,874 18,766,986 29,307,439 23,790,798 18,580,585 13,044,440 22,410,297 47,579,551 50,862,651 33,746,360 900,434 4,131,764 63,174,466 22,641,201 1,367,405 2,163,311 8,239,593 21,799,647 2,468,016 16,572,792 21,860,031 13,012,489 29.6 13.0 38.9 24.4 15.8 33.0 35.2 11.0 24.3 8.6 29.8 18.0 17.3 23.7 20.1 71.8 19.1 32.2 13.3 29.4 26.5 36.5 19.8 71.6 32.6 12.0 35.1 16,304 477,950 29.3 Total 32,862,668 590,178,597 19.3 NJ_PersonTrip file • 9,054,849 records – One for each person in NJ_Resident file • Specifying 32,862,668 Daily Person Trips – Each characterized by a precise • Origination, Destination and Departure Time
  • 82. “Pixelated” New Jersey (“1/2 mile square; 0.25mi2) aTaxi “PRT” Concept • • • During peak demand aTaxis operate between aTaxiStands • Autonomous vehicles wait for walk-up customers • Located in “center” of each pixel (< ~ ¼ mile walk) • Departure is Delayed to facilitate ride-sharing Focus of Analysis: • what is the ride-share potential? Ridesharing delivers: • Congestion relief • Energy savings • Reduced costs/passenger • Environmental sustainability
  • 83. Warren County Population: 108,692
  • 84. NJ Transit Train Station “Consumer-shed”
  • 85. “Pixelated” New Jersey (“1/2 mile square; 0.25mi2) aTaxi Concept – (PRT) Model Personal Rapid Transit Model aTaxi Concept – SPT Model Smart Para Transit Transit Model Ref: http://orfe.princeton.edu/~alaink/Theses/2013/Brownell,%20Chris%20Final%20Thesis.pdf
  • 86. New Jersey Summary Data Item Value Area (mi2) 8,061 # of Pixels Generating at Least One O_Trip 21,643 Area of Pixels (mi2) 5,411 % of Open Space 32.9% # of Pixels Generating 95% of O_Trips 9,519 # of Pixels Generating 50% of O_Trips 1,310 # of Intra-Pixel Trips 447,102 # of O_Walk Trips 1,943,803 # of All O_Trips 32,862,668 Avg. All O_TripLength (miles) # of O_aTaxi Trips 19.6 30,471,763 Avg. O_aTaxiTripLength (miles) 20.7 Median O_aTaxiTripLength (miles) 12.5 95% O_aTaxiTripLength (miles) 38.0
  • 87. State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi) • Serves essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day) • Shared ridership potential: Slide 98
  • 88. State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi) • Serves essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day) • Shared ridership potential:
  • 89. State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi) • Fleet size (Instantaneous Repositioning)
  • 90. State-wide automatedTaxi (aTaxi) • Abel to serve essentially all NJ travel demand (32M trips/day) • Shared ridership allows – Peak hour; peak direction: Av. vehicle occupancies to can reach ~ 3 p/v and eliminate much of the congestion – Essentially all congestion disappears with appropriate implications on the environment – Required fleet-size under 2M aTaxis (about half) • (3.71 registered automobiles in NJ (2009)
  • 91. Discussion! Thank You alaink@princeton.edu www.SmartDrivingCar.com